I've read again and again that the only reason that rupakaya arises is to benefit sentient beings - i.e. if there were no sentient beings, there would be no rupakaya. I am guessing this is the Mahayana understanding of rupakaya.

dakini_boi wrote:I've read again and again that the only reason that rupakaya arises is to benefit sentient beings - i.e. if there were no sentient beings, there would be no rupakaya. I am guessing this is the Mahayana understanding of rupakaya.

Do Dzogchen or Vajrayana have a different point of view on this?

I don't think so.

/magnus

We are all here to help each other go through this, whatever it is.~Kurt Vonnegut

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

"Even though you have recognized your essence, if you do not get accustomed to it,You will be carried away by the enemy of thoughts, like a small child in a battle field.So long as you are not free from the limitations of accepting and rejecting,That long will you not recognize the view of the innermost secret heart-essence."

ChNNR talked last night about how, according to sutra, the accumulation of merit results in the rupakaya, while the accumulation of wisdom results in the dharmakaya. But Dzogchen disputes this, since merit is relative and thus cannot "produce" buddhahood - and rupakaya is simply a qualification of dharmakaya. Given that, I thought maybe the Dzogchen view is that rupakaya doesn't necessarily depend on the existence of sentient beings (since it is a quality of lhundrub, which isn't exclusive to sentient beings).

I guess a related question would be - does lhundrub automatically imply the arising of ignorance?

dakini_boi wrote:ChNNR talked last night about how, according to sutra, the accumulation of merit results in the rupakaya, while the accumulation of wisdom results in the dharmakaya. But Dzogchen disputes this, since merit is relative and thus cannot "produce" buddhahood - and rupakaya is simply a qualification of dharmakaya. Given that, I thought maybe the Dzogchen view is that rupakaya doesn't necessarily depend on the existence of sentient beings (since it is a quality of lhundrub, which isn't exclusive to sentient beings).

I guess a related question would be - does lhundrub automatically imply the arising of ignorance?

Because compassion, the ceaseless activity for sentient beings, is inherent to the natural state the rupakaya is not the cause of accumulation of merit. Accumulation of merit is of great importance to fully recognize the natural state, since it produce the auspicious conditions necessary. But the natural state is perfect in the three kayas right now, nothing needs to be added or improved.

I missed Rinpoche's teaching so I can't comment on what he said.

/magnus

We are all here to help each other go through this, whatever it is.~Kurt Vonnegut

"To reject practice by saying, 'it is conceptual!' is the path of fools. A tendency of the inexperienced and something to be avoided."- Longchenpa

"Even though you have recognized your essence, if you do not get accustomed to it,You will be carried away by the enemy of thoughts, like a small child in a battle field.So long as you are not free from the limitations of accepting and rejecting,That long will you not recognize the view of the innermost secret heart-essence."

dakini_boi wrote:ChNNR talked last night about how, according to sutra, the accumulation of merit results in the rupakaya, while the accumulation of wisdom results in the dharmakaya. But Dzogchen disputes this, since merit is relative and thus cannot "produce" buddhahood - and rupakaya is simply a qualification of dharmakaya. Given that, I thought maybe the Dzogchen view is that rupakaya doesn't necessarily depend on the existence of sentient beings (since it is a quality of lhundrub, which isn't exclusive to sentient beings).

I guess a question would be - does lhundrub automatically imply the arising of ignorance?

Is the Heart Sutra included in this? Perhaps it's not seen as a genuine Sutra. But if we do look at the Heart Sutra you can see that in it wisdom is described as coming from it's own side rather than as being conceptually fabricated or crafted. I don't think this is that much different from the Dzogchen view. Obviously there are big differences in general between these views but for wisdom to be genuine it has to come from it's own side.Lhundrub doesn't imply ignorance is truly established because just as the Heart Sutra points out 'form is emptiness and emptiness is form'. The nature of Lhundrub is that it is unborn.

The Blessed One said:

"What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." Sabba Sutta.

heart wrote:Because compassion, the ceaseless activity for sentient beings, is inherent to the natural state the rupakaya is not the cause of accumulation of merit. Accumulation of merit is of great importance to fully recognize the natural state, since it produce the auspicious conditions necessary. But the natural state is perfect in the three kayas right now, nothing needs to be added or improved.

All buddhist teaching (tantra, dzogchen, sutra) do not conflict. They require the appropriate being to interpret them correctly.

According to Buddha beings are either low, medium or high intellect which is the reason for different levels of teachings. You follow the teaching appropriate to your being. Trying to understand a teaching you cannot grasp is a wast of time.All teachings will appear differently to the type of being you are. It doesn't mean they conflict.